System And Method For Algorithmic Selection Of A Consensus From A Plurality Of Ideas

ABSTRACT

A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of prior application Ser. No.11/934,990, filed on Nov. 5, 2007, under the title, “Selection Of AConsensus From A Plurality Of Ideas” and published on Oct. 16, 2008 asUnited States Patent Application Publication No. 20080254436, whichclaimed priority under 35 U.S.C § 119(e) to provisional application No.60/866,099, filed on Nov. 16, 2006, under the title, “Software to grouppeople and ideas”, and to provisional application No. 60/981,234, filedon Oct. 19, 2007, under the title, “Selection of a consensus from aplurality of ideas”. Full Paris Convention priority is hereby expresslyreserved.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the Invention

The present invention is directed to a system and method of selection ofa consensus from a collection of ideas.

BACKGROUND

Fundamentally, it is hard for a useful consensus to be extracted from agroup. There are many instances in which a collection of people needs toreach a consensus regarding a particular issue. The issue may beanything that can be voted on, such as a candidate to be chosen fromamong a group of candidates, or a pressing issue that needs to be putforth by the group in a representative manner. For very small groups ofpeople, this may be relatively straightforward, and may result from adialogue among the people within the small group.

However, for groups larger than about ten people, finding a consensusbecomes much more difficult. Direct discussion among the group membersbecomes unwieldy and awkward, and an exchange of ideas that may besimple in a group of five people becomes onerous for a group of 100. Inaddition, even in small group, the majority of the discussion may belead by a relatively small number of participants.

Accordingly, there exists a need for a method of selecting an idea orforming a consensus, which works for both large and small groups ofpeople.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

An embodiment is a computer program product, comprising a computerusable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein,said computer readable program code adapted to be executed to implementa method for rating a plurality of ideas, said method comprising:distributing the plurality of ideas to a group of participants;collecting from each participant a rating for each idea; recording anevaluation time for each participant and each idea; and forming aweighted rating from each rating and each corresponding evaluation time.

Another embodiment is a computer program product, comprising a computerusable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein,said computer readable program code adapted to be executed to implementa method for rating a plurality of ideas, said method comprising:distributing a first plurality of ideas to a group of participants;collecting from each participant a first rating for each idea in thefirst plurality; selecting a first winning idea from the first pluralityin response to the first ratings; collecting a first approval ratingfrom each participant in response to the first winning idea;distributing a second plurality of ideas to the group of participants;collecting from each participant a second rating for each idea in thesecond plurality; selecting a second winning idea from the secondplurality in response to the second ratings; collecting a secondapproval rating from each participant in response to the second winningidea; determining a third plurality of ideas in response to the firstand second approval ratings; distributing a third plurality of ideas tothe group of participants; collecting from each participant a thirdrating for each idea in the third plurality; and selecting a thirdwinning idea from the third plurality in response to the third ratings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a consensus selection process.

FIG. 2 is an exemplary template.

FIG. 3 is the exemplary template of FIG. 2, after randomization of theidea numbers, with voting results.

FIG. 4 is a tabular summary of exemplary first-round voting results.

FIG. 5 is a numerical summary of the results of FIG. 4.

FIG. 6 is a tabular summary of exemplary second-round voting results.

FIG. 7 is a numerical relationship between the number of participantsand the number of ideas per group.

FIG. 8 is an exemplary template for 100 participants, 100 ideas and 8ideas per group.

FIG. 9 is an exemplary stitched template for 10 participants, 30 ideas,and 9 ideas per group.

FIG. 10 is tabular summary of an exemplary tough competitioncalculation.

FIG. 11 is an exemplary table of weighted ratings versus participantratings and corresponding evaluation times.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart of a consensus selection process featuringapproval ratings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present application discloses a computer system and algorithmicmethods for selecting a consensus or a group of preferred ideas from agroup of participants or respondents. While much of the descriptionexplains the methodology of this invention, the invention is bestpracticed when encoded into a software-based system for carrying outthis methodology. This disclosure includes a plurality of method stepswhich are in effect flow charts to the software implementation thereof.This implementation may draw upon some or all of the steps providedherein.

The participants may vote on a set of ideas that are provided to theparticipants, or may themselves generate a set of responses to aquestion, or may even generate the question itself. The ideas mayinclude anything that can be chosen or voted on, including but notlimited to, words, pictures, video, music, and so forth.

The participants repeatedly go through the process of rating a subset ofideas and keeping the highest-rated of all the ideas, until the subsetis reduced to a targeted number, or optionally repeated until only asingle idea remains. The last remaining idea represents the consensus ofthe group of participants. There are several specific aspects thatpertain to this selection method, several of which are brieflysummarized in the following paragraphs.

One specific aspect is that the first time the ideas are divided intogroups, the group may explicitly exclude the idea that is generated bythe participant, so that the participant is not put in a position wherehe/she may compare his/her own idea to those generated by otherparticipants.

Another aspect is that the first time the ideas are divided into groups,the groups may be formed so that no two ideas are included together inmore than one group. In other words, a particular idea competes againstanother particular idea no more than once in the initial round ofrating.

Another aspect is that the participants may rate their respective groupsof ideas by ranking, such as by picking their first choice, or bypicking their first and second choices, or by picking their first,second and third choices. They may also vote in a negative manner, butchoosing their least favorite idea or ideas from the group.

Another aspect is that for each round of rating, there may be athreshold rating level that may optionally be adjusted for competitionthat is too difficult and/or too easy.

Another aspect is that a particular participant that votes against theconsensus, such as a saboteur or other evil-doer, may have his/her votesdiscounted. This aspect, as well as the other aspects summarized above,is described in greater detail in the remainder of this document.

A flowchart of some of the basic elements of the method 10 for selectinga consensus is shown in FIG. 1.

In element 11, a question may be provided to a group of participants orrespondents. The question may be multiple-choice, or may alternately beopen-ended.

In element 12, the participants provide their respective responses tothe question of element 11, which may be referred to as “ideas”. Theiranswers may be selected from a list, as in a multiple-choice vote or apolitical election, or may be open-ended, with a wording and/or contentinitiated by each respective participant.

In element 13, the ideas generated in element 12 are collected.

In element 14, the ideas collected in element 13 are parsed into variousgroups or sets, with a group corresponding to each participant, and thegroups are distributed to their respective participants. The groups maybe overlapping (i.e., non-exclusive) subsets of the full collection ofideas. In some embodiments, each group explicitly excludes the ideagenerated by the particular participant, so that the participant cannotrate his/her own idea directly against those generated by otherparticipants. In some embodiments, each group is unique, so that no twogroups contain exactly the same ideas. In some embodiments, the groupsare parsed so that no two ideas appear together in more than one group.In some embodiments, the number of ideas per group is equal to thenumber of times a particular idea appears in a group. The mathematics ofthe group parsing is provided in greater detail below.

In element 15, the participants rate the ideas in their respectivegroups. In some embodiments, the ratings include a ranking of some orall of the groups. In some embodiments, the ratings include selecting afirst choice from the ideas in the group. In some embodiments, theratings include selecting a first and second choice. In someembodiments, the ratings include selecting a first, second and thirdchoice.

In element 16, the ratings from or all or most of the participants arecollected and tallied. In some embodiments, each idea is given a score,based on the average rating for each group in which the idea appears.The mathematics of the ratings tallying is provided in greater detailbelow.

In element 17, the highest-rated ideas are kept in consideration, andmay be re-parsed into new groups and re-distributed to the participantsfor further competition. The lower-rated ideas are not considered forfurther competition. The cutoff may be based on a rating threshold,where ideas scoring higher than the threshold are kept and ideas scoringless than the threshold are discarded. In some embodiments, thethreshold may be absolute. In some embodiments, the threshold may berelative, based on the relative strength of the ideas in competition. Insome embodiments, the thresholds may be adjusted based on the relativestrength of the competition. The mathematics behind these thresholdaspects is provided in greater detail below.

In element 18, if only one idea is kept from element 17, then that ideais the consensus and we are finished, so we proceed to element 19 andstop. If more than one idea is kept from element 18, then we return toelement 14 and continue.

In some embodiments, the elements 11-19 in method 10 are carried out bysoftware implemented on one or more computers or servers. Alternatively,the elements may be performed by any other suitable mechanism.

At this point, it is worthwhile to describe an example, withmathematical discussions following the example.

In this example, a company asks a crowd of 1000 customers to give adviceon “what our customers want”. As incentive, the company will giveproduct coupons to all participants and will give larger prizes and/orcash for the best ideas. The participation will be through a particularwebsite that is configured to deliver and receive information from theparticipants. The website is connected to a particular server thatmanages the associated data.

In this example, “what our customers want” is analogous to the questionof element 11 in FIG. 1.

Each participant types in an idea on the website. This is analogous withelements 12 and 13 in FIG. 1.

The server randomly mixes and parses the ideas for peer review. Eachparticipant is randomly sent 10 ideas to rate through the website. Forthis example, each idea is viewed by 10 other users, but compared to 90other ideas. This is analogous with element 14 in FIG. 1.

In this example, there are two constraints on random mixing and parsingof the ideas. First, the participant's own idea is not sent to theparticipant, so that the participant does not have the opportunity torate his/her own idea. Second, no idea is paired with any other ideamore than once. This avoids the potential for a particularly good ideabeing eliminated by repeatedly being paired with one or more extremelygood ideas, while a mediocre idea is passed along by being luckilypaired with 9 bad ideas.

Each participant views the 10 ideas from other participants on thewebsite, and chooses the one that he/she most agrees with. Theparticipant's selection is also performed through the website. This isanalogous with elements 15 and 16 in FIG. 1.

The company specifies a so-called “hurdle rate” for this round ofvoting, such as 40%. If a particular idea wins 40% or more of the 10distinct competitive sets that include it, then it is passed on to thenext round of competition. If the particular idea does not win more than40%, it is excluded from further competition and does not pass on to thenext round of competition. Note that the company may also specify acertain desired number of ideas (say, top 100) or percentage of ideas(say, top 10%) to move on to the next round, rather than an absolutehurdle rate (40%). Note that the hurdle rate may be specified by theoperator of the website, or any suitable sponsor of the competition. Theserver tallies the selections from the participants, and keeps only thehighest-rated ideas. This is analogous with element 17 in FIG. 1.

For this example, we assume that the server keeps the top 100 ideas forthe next round of competition. The server re-randomizes and parses the100 ideas into sets of 8 this time, rather than the set of 10 from thefirst round of competition. Each idea is seen by 80 participants in thisround, compared to 10 in the initial round. In this round, each idea maybe in competition with another particular idea more than once, but nevermore than 8 times in the 80 competitions. The probability of multiplepairings decreases with an increasing number of pairings, so that havingtwo particular ideas paired together 8 times in this example ispossible, but is rather unlikely. The random sets of 8 ideas are sent toall the initial 1000 participants through the website.

The company or sponsor specifies the hurdle rate for an idea to passbeyond the second round of competition. For this example, the secondhurdle rate may be the top 5 ideas. The participants vote through thewebsite, the server tallies the votes, and the top 5 ideas are selected,either to be delivered to the company or sponsor, or to be entered intoa third round of competition.

In this example, through two relatively simple voting steps in whicheach participant selects his/her favorite from a list of 10 and 8 ideas,respectively, the company and/or sponsor of the competition learns thebest ideas of the crowd of participants. Any or all of the competitionmay be tailored as needed, including the number of voting rounds, thenumber of ideas per set, the hurdle rates, and so forth.

The following is a more detailed explanation of some of the internaltasks performed by the server, as in elements 14-17 of FIG. 1.

For this explanation, we will use numbers as proxies for ideas. Weassume 1000 users, each generating an idea, for a total of 1000 ideas.For this example, we denote each idea by an objective ranking, with 1000being the best idea and 1 being the worst. In practice, actual ideas maynot have an objective ranking, but for this example, it is instructiveto assume that they do, and to watch the progress of these ideas as theyprogress through the rating system.

First, we determine how many different “ideas” (numbers in our case) wewant each participant to view/judge. In this example, we choose a valueof 10.

Next we build a template for 1000 users with 10 views each and no twoideas ever matched more than once. An example of such a template isshown in FIG. 2; instructions on how to generate such a template areprovided below. Note that this is just a template, and does notrepresent any views seen by the users.

Then, we randomly assign each of the 1000 participants to a number onthe template. These assignments are shown in FIG. 3; in this case #771is assigned to the 1 spot, #953 to the 2 spot, and so forth.

Each participant receives his/her 10 ideas and then votes for his/herfavorite idea out of the 10. This “first choice” is denoted in therightmost column in FIG. 3 as “local winner”, and is shown for eachparticipant.

For user #1, “idea” 953 is the best idea out of the 10 presented to user#1, and therefore user #1 rates it highest. For user #2, idea 983 is thebest idea out of the 10 presented to user #2, and even beat out idea953, which is user #1's first choice. This shows a benefit of randomsorting with no repeat competitions. Specifically, idea 953 may bepretty good, beating out 95.3% of the other “ideas”, but if all wereriding on user #2's set, 953 would have been eliminated. For user #7,idea 834 passed through, due to a random juxtaposition with easycompetition.

For this initial voting round, we use a sorting method that never pairstwo “ideas” together more than once. This way, each of the 1000 ideascompetes with 90 other ideas even though any one user never has tocompare more than 10 ideas with each other. This helps keep the fidelityof the winners high, while at the same time helps reduce the work ofindividual users.

To demonstrate how effectively these “ideas” pass through the rankingsystem, we sort them by ranking and examine their winning percentage.This is shown in tabular form in FIG. 4. We then set a so-called “hurdlerate”, such as 40%, and pass only “ideas” that win at least 40% of their10 competitions.

For the best “ideas” (those with high numbers in this example), weexpect to see high percentages of victory for the competitions in whichthey occur. For the particular hurdle rate of 40%, the top 86competitors, numbered from 1000 down to 915, all passed with at least40% of the first-choice votes of the competitions. For ideas numbering914 and down, we randomly lose some ideas that were better than a few ofthe worst winners.

Considering that the goal of this parsing is to filter the best 1% orless of the 1000 ideas, there may be a considerable margin of safety. Inthis example, the users filter 11.8% of the total ideas and the returnthe absolute best 8.6%, which may be significantly larger than the 1% orless that is desired.

FIG. 5 is a tabular summary of the results of FIG. 4, for the initialround of voting. The best idea that is excluded by the initial round ofvoting is idea 914, denoted as “Best Miss”. The worst idea that ispassed on to further rounds of voting is idea 813, denoted as “WorstSurvivor”. Note that FIG. 5 provides an after-the-fact glimpse of theaccuracy statistics of the initial round of voting; in a real votingsession these would not be known unless the entire group of participantssorted through and ranked all 1000 ideas.

For the second round of voting, we include only the ideas that exceededthe hurdle rate of the initial round of voting. For simplicity, weassume that there were 100 of these ideas that exceed the hurdle rate ofthe initial round of voting. Note that we have 1000 participants butonly 100 ideas to vote on, which implies that the fidelity of thesecond-round voting results may be even better than in the first-round,as a greater percentage of the participants vote on the remaining ideas.

For this second round of voting, we parse the 100 ideas into competitivesets of 8 ideas, rather than the 10-idea sets used in the initial roundof voting, and distribute them to the initial 1000 participants. Therationale for this parsing choice is provided below.

Each of the 100 ideas appears in 80 unique competitive viewings for thesecond round, compared to 10 unique competitive viewings for the firstround. This is an increased number of competitions per idea, even thoughany individual participant sees only 8 of the 100 ideas.

For the second round and any subsequent rounds, we may no longer enforcethe “no two ideas ever compete with each other twice” rule. However, themost they can overlap is 8 out of the 80 competitions in the secondround. Typically we expect no more than 2 or 3 pairings of any twoparticular ideas in the second round, with higher pairings becomeincreasingly unlikely. For one or more voting rounds near the end of thesession, in which the voting pool has been thinned to only a handful ofideas, the entire group of participants may vote directly on the entirevoting pool of ideas.

FIG. 6 is a tabular summary of the second-round voting results. For ahurdle rate of 36%, the 11 best ideas are retained for subsequent votingor for delivery to the survey sponsor. Subsequent voting rounds wouldreturn the highest-ranked ideas. As the last round of voting, for asufficiently low number of ideas, such as 3, 5 or 10, it may bedesirable to have all participants vote on all the ideas, without regardfor any duplicate pairings.

The preceding explanation, as well as the numerical results of FIGS.2-6, is merely exemplary and should not be construed as limiting in anyway. Two particular aspects of the above explanation are presented ingreater detail below, including an exemplary set of instructions forgenerating a template, and an exemplary guide for selecting how manyideas are presented to each participant in a given round of voting.

As an alternative to having the participants choose only their favoriteidea, i.e. a first choice, the participants may alternatively choosetheir first and second choices, or rank their top three choices. Thesemay be known as “complex hurdles”, and a “complex hurdle rate” mayoptionally involve more than a single percentage of competitions inwhich a particular idea is a #1 choice. For instance, the criteria forkeep/dismiss may be 50% for first choice (meaning that any idea that isa first choice in at least 50% of its competitions is kept for the nextround), 40%/20% for first/second choices (meaning that if an idea is afirst choice in at least 40% of its competitions and is a second choicein at least 20% of its competitions is kept for the next round), 30%/30%for first/second choices, 20%/80% for first second choices, and/or10%/80% for first/second choices. The complex hurdle rate may includeany or all of these conditions, and may have variable second choicerequirements that depend on the first choice hurdle rate.

The following three paragraphs provide a rationale for choosing thenumber of ideas to include in a group for each participant, based on thenumber of participants and the constraint that no two particular ideasshould appear together in more than one group. Based on this rationale,each idea may be compared with a maximum number of other ideas for agiven round of voting.

The rationale includes a known sequence of integers, known in numbertheory as the Mian-Chowla sequence. The following description of theMian-Chowla sequence is taken from the online reference wikipedia.org:

In mathematics, the Mian-Chowla sequence is an integer sequence definedrecursively in the following way. Let a₁=1. Then for n>1, a_(n) is thesmallest integer such that the pairwise sum a_(i)+a_(j) is distinct, forall i and j less then or equal to n. Initially, with a₁, there is onlyone pairwise sum, 1+1=2. The next term in the sequence, a₂, is 2 sincethe pairwise sums then are 2, 3 and 4, i.e., they are distinct. Then, a₃can't be 3 because there would be the non-distinct pairwise sums1+3=2+2=4. We find then that a₃=4, with the pairwise sums being 2, 3, 4,5, 6 and 8. The sequence continues 8, 13, 21, 31, 45, 66, 81, 97, 123,148, 182, 204, 252, 290, 361, 401, 475, and so forth. This sequence isused because the difference between any two numbers in the sequence isnot repeated, which becomes useful in the construction of templates,described in detail below.

For a given number of participants and a given number of ideas, wedenoted the quantity p as the lesser of the number of participants andthe number of ideas. We choose the number of ideas n in a group to bethe largest integer n that satisfies (2a_(n)−1)≥p. For instance, for 100participants and 100 ideas total to be voted upon, p is 100, (2a₈−1) is89, which satisfies the above equation, and (2a₉−1) is 131, which doesnot satisfy the above equation. Therefore, for 100 ideas distributedamong 100 participants, we choose 8 ideas per group. Several numericalexamples are provided by FIG. 7.

The preceding rationale provides one exemplary choice for the number ofideas to be included in each group that is distributed to the votingparticipants. It will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the artthat other suitable numbers of ideas per group may also be used.

The following is an exemplary set of instructions for generating atemplate. It will be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art thatany suitable template may be used.

Due to the large and unwieldy number of combinations that are possible,it may be beneficial to have the server dynamically generate a suitabletemplate for a particular number of ideas per group and a particularnumber of participants. In some embodiments, this dynamic generation maybe preferable to generating beforehand and storing the suitabletemplates, simply due to the large number of templates that may berequired.

The following is a formulaic method that can randomly scatter the ideasand parse them into groups or sets of various sizes, while never pairingany two ideas more than once. The method may be run fairly quickly insoftware, and may be scalable to any number of users or ideas per set.

First, we determine the number of ideas to include in each group ofideas that is voted upon. This may be done using the rationale describedabove, although any integer value up to and including the valueprescribed by the rationale will also provide the condition that no twoideas are paired together more than once.

Typically, the first round of voting uses the rationale described above,with the constraint that no two ideas compete against each other morethan once. For subsequent rounds of voting, this constraint is relaxed,although a template generated as described herein also reduces thenumber of times two ideas compete against each other.

For illustrative purposes, we assume that we have 100 participants and100 ideas total for voting, and that we use 8 ideas per group for theinitial round of voting. Each of the 100 ideas has a correspondingnumber, 1 through 100, which has no particular significance of its own,but is used in the template as a placeholder for identifying aparticular idea.

For the first participant, we assign 8 ideas corresponding to the first8 numbers in the Mian-Chowla sequence: 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 21, 31 and 45.

For each subsequent participant, we increment by one the idea numbers ofthe previous participant. For instance, for the second participant, weincrement by one the idea numbers of the first participant: 2, 3, 5, 9,14, 22, 32 and 46. For the third participant, we increment by one theidea numbers of the second participant: 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 23, 33 and 47.

Once idea #100 is reached, we start back at #1. For instance, forparticipant #56, the idea numbers are: 56, 57, 59, 63, 68, 76, 86 and100. For participant #57, the idea numbers are: 57, 58, 60, 64, 69, 77,87 and 1. As another example, for participant #97, the idea numbers are:97, 98, 100, 4, 9, 17, 27 and 41. For participant #98, the idea numbersare: 98, 99, 1, 5, 10, 18, 28 and 42. For participant #99, the ideanumbers are: 99, 100, 2, 6, 11, 19, 29 and 43. For participant #100, theidea numbers are: 100, 1, 3, 7, 12, 20, 30 and 44.

Mathematically, starting back at #1 is equivalent to an operation inmodular arithmetic. For instance, 101 equals 1+101 mod 100, or 1 plus101 modulo the number of ideas in the plurality. For the purposes ofthis application, the “1” may be neglected, and the modulus definitionmay include sequences such as 98, 99, 100, 1, 2, rather than the strictmathematical modulo sequence of 98, 99, 0, 1, 2. Since the idea numbersare merely placeholders to be later paired up with ideas, we ignore anyrepresentational differences between 0 and 100, and choose to use 100because we normally begin a count with the number 1 rather than 0.

FIG. 8 is a tabular representation of the distribution of idea numbersamong the participants, as described above.

If there are more participants than ideas, we continue assigning ideanumbers in the recursive manner described above.

Note that there are two particularly desirable features of thisdistribution of idea numbers among the participants. First, eachparticular pair of idea numbers appears together in at most oneparticipant's group of ideas. Second, each particular idea shows up inexactly 8 participants' groups of ideas. If the number of participantsexceeds the number of ideas, some ideas may receive more entries in thetemplate than other ideas. Any inequities in the number of templateentries may be compensated if the “winners” in each voting round arechosen by the percentage of “wins”, rather than the absolute number of“wins”.

Next, we randomly assign the participant numbers to the trueparticipants, and randomly assign the idea numbers to the true ideas.This randomization ensures that that a particular participant receives adifferent set of ideas each time the process is run.

Finally, we scan each of the entries in the template to find entries inwhich a particular participant receives his/her own idea in his/hergroup. Because we don't want to have a participant rate his/her ownidea, we swap idea sets with other participants until there are no morecases where a particular participant has his/her own idea in his/hergroup.

The above formulaic method for randomly scattering the ideas and parsingthem into groups of various sizes may be extended to any number ofparticipants, any number of ideas, and any number of ideas per group.For an equal number of participants and ideas, if the number of ideasper group is chosen by the rationale described above, any two ideas arenot paired more than once.

There may be instances when there are more participants than ideas. Forinstance, if the initial round of voting has equal numbers of ideas andparticipants, then subsequent rounds of voting may likely have moreparticipants than ideas, because some ideas have been eliminated. Formore participants than ideas, the templates may be constructed for theparticular number of ideas, and may be repeated as necessary to coverall participants. For later rounds of voting, in which the number ofideas may be manageable, such as 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 or any other suitableinteger, the templates may not even be used, and the entire small groupof ideas may be distributed to all participants for voting. In thismanner, the entire group of participants may directly vote for thewinning idea to form the consensus.

There may be instances when there are more ideas than participants. Forinstance, a panel of 10 participants may vote on 30 ideas. If there aresignificantly more ideas than participants, such as by a factor of 2, 3or more, then it may be beneficial to first form multiple, separatetemplates, then join them together to form a single template.

Using the example of 10 participants and 30 ideas, we find the largestnumber of ideas per group for 10 participants, based on the rationaleabove and the tabular data in FIG. 7. This value turns out to be threeideas per group. It may be more efficient to increase the number ofideas per group because each participant may readily handle more than 3choices, so we choose to make three templates—one for idea numbers 1-10,one for idea numbers 11-20 and one for idea numbers 21-30—and stitchthem together afterwards. FIG. 9 is a tabular representation of astitched-together template. For the exemplary stitched-together templateof FIG. 9, there are 9 ideas per group, with each of the 30 total ideasappearing in 3 groups.

Because there may be so few groups containing a particular idea, it maybe beneficial to have each participant pick his/her first and secondranked choices, or top three ranked choices.

The following is an example of an algorithm to guard against fraud. Suchan algorithm may be useful to foil any potential scammers or saboteurswho may deliberately vote against good ideas in the hopes of advancingtheir own ideas.

A simple way to guard against fraud is to compare each participant'schoices to those of the rest of the participants after a round of votingis completed. In general, if a participant passes up an idea that isfavored by the rest of the participants, or advances an idea that isadvanced by few or no other participants, then the participant may bepenalized. Such a penalty may be exclusion from further voting, or thelike. Once a fraud is identified, his/her choices may be downplayed oromitted from the vote tallies.

Mathematically, an exemplary way to find a fraud is as follows. For eachidea, define a pass ratio as the ratio of the number of wins for theidea, divided by the total number of competitions that the idea is in.Next, calculate the pass ratios for each idea in the group. Next, findthe differences between the pass ratio of each idea in the group and thepass ratio of the idea that the participant chooses. If the maximumvalue of these differences exceeds a particular fraud value, such as40%, then the participant may be labeled as a fraud. Other suitable waysof finding a fraud may be used as well. Once a fraud is identified, thefraud's voting choices may be suitably discounted. For instance, of thegroup of ideas presented to the fraud, the fraud's own voting choice maybe neglected and given instead to the highest-ranking idea present inthe fraud's group of ideas. In addition, the fraud's choices may be usedto identify other frauds among the participants. For instance, if aprobable fraud picked a particular idea, then any other participant thatpicked that particular idea may also by labeled as a fraud, analogous toso-called “guilt by association”. This may be used sparingly to avoid arash of false positives.

Due to the random nature of the idea parsing, in which ideas arerandomly grouped with other ideas, there may be instances when an ideais passed on to future voting rounds because it has unusually weakcompetition, or is blocked from future voting rounds because it hasunusually strong competition. This random nature is most problematic forideas that would otherwise rate at or near the hurdle rates, where justa small change in voting up or down could decide whether the idea ispassed along or not. The following is a description of four exemplaryalgorithms for compensating for such a random nature of the competition.

A first algorithm for compensating for the random nature of thecompetition is described as follows.

We define a quantity known as “tough competition percentage” as thefraction of an idea's competition groups that contain at least onecompetitor that scored a higher percentage of wins that the idea inquestion. The “tough competition percentage” is calculated after aparticular round of voting, and may be calculated for each idea.

If a particular idea is paired up with unusually strong competition inthe various idea groups that contain it, then after the round of voting,its “tough competition percentage” may be relatively high. Likewise,unusually weak competition may produce a relatively low “toughcompetition percentage”.

Given a “win percentage” defined as the ratio of the number of groups inwhich a particular idea wins the voting, divided by the number of groupsin which a particular idea appears, and given the “tough competitionpercentage” defined above, we may perform the following calculations,shown schematically in FIG. 10

Rank the ideas by “win percentage”, as in the second column. Calculatethe “tough competition percentage”, as in the fourth column. From the“tough competition percentage” in the fourth column, subtract the “toughcompetition percentage” of the idea below the idea in question, listedin the fifth column, with the difference being in the sixth column. Addthe difference in the sixth column to the “win percentage” in the secondcolumn to arrive at a so-called “new score” in the seventh column. Ifany values in the seventh column are ranked out of order, then switchthem.

In addition to this first algorithm described above and shownschematically in FIG. 10, there may be other algorithms that helpcompensate for unusually strong or unusually weak competition. A secondalgorithm for compensating for the random nature of the competition isdescribed as follows.

We define a so-called “face-off ratio” as the number of times aparticular idea beats another particular idea, divided by the number ofgroups that contain both of those two ideas. If a “face-off ratio” of anidea with the idea that is ranked directly adjacent to it exceeds aso-called “face-off ratio threshold”, such as 66% or 75%, then the twoideas may be switched. This “face-off ratio” may not be used in thefirst round of voting, because two ideas may not be paired together morethan once.

A third algorithm for compensating for the random nature of thecompetition is described as follows.

After a particular round of voting, each idea has a “win percentage”,defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular ideawins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particularidea appears.

For each group in which a particular idea appears, we find the maximum“win percentage” of all the ideas in the group, excluding the “winpercentage” of the idea in question. We denote this as a “top see winpercentage” for the group, for the idea in question. If the idea inquestion won/lost the voting for the group, then we denote this asbeating/losing to a group with a particular “top see win percentage”. Werepeat this for each of the groups in which a particular idea appears.We then find the highest “top see win percentage” that the idea beat andincrement it by (1/the number of ideas per group), find the lowest “topsee win percentage” that the idea lost to and decrement it by (1/thenumber of ideas per group), and average those two numbers with the “winpercentage” of the idea in question to form a “new score” for each idea.If the “new score” of a particular idea differs from its “old score” bymore than a particular threshold, such as 6%, then we change its “oldscore” to the “new score” and repeat the previous steps in the algorithmat least once more.

A fourth algorithm for compensating for the random nature of thecompetition is described as follows.

After a particular round of voting, each idea has a “win percentage”,defined as the ratio of the number of groups in which a particular ideawins the voting, divided by the number of groups in which a particularidea appears.

Tally the “win percentages” of all the other individual ideas thatappear in all the groups in which the particular idea appears. Find thehighest win percentage from every competitive set that includes theparticular idea and denote as “top sees”. From these tallied “top sees”,find Q1 (the first quartile, which is defined as the value that exceeds25% of the tallied “top sees”), Q2 (the second quartile, which isdefined as the value that exceeds 50% of the tallied “top sees”, whichis also the median “top see” value), and Q3 (the third quartile, whichis defined as the value that exceeds 75% of the tallied “top sees”).

Note that if the competition is truly random, and if the groups aretruly randomly assembled, then a fair median “top see” for all the otherindividual ideas that appear in all the groups in which the particularidea appears would be 50%. If the calculated Q2 differs from this fairvalue of 50% by more than a threshold, such as 10%, then we deem thecompetition to be unfair and proceed with the rest of this fourthcorrection algorithm.

Similarly, if the difference between (Q3-Q2) and (Q2-Q1) exceeds athreshold, such as 10%, then we see that the distribution may be skewed,and also deem the competition to be unfair and proceed with the rest ofthis fourth correction algorithm.

We define a “new score” as the idea's original “win percentage”, plus(Q1+Q3-50%). The ideas may then be re-ranked, compared to adjacentideas, based on their “new scores”. The re-ranking may occur for allideas, or for a subset of ideas in which at least one of the twotriggering conditions above is satisfied.

Alternatively, other percentile values may be used in place of Q1, Q2and Q3, such as P90 and P10 (the value that exceeds 90% and 10% of thetallied “win percentages”, respectively.) In addition to the fouralgorithms described above, any suitable algorithm may be used foradjusting for intra-group competition that is too strong or too weak.

In some embodiments, it may be useful to periodically or occasionallycheck with the participants and ensure that they agree with the statusof the session for their voting. For instance, an agenda may be writtenup by a group of participants, posted, and voted on by the all theparticipants. The full agenda or individual items may be voted on thegroup, in order to provide immediate feedback. Such approval voting maybe accomplished in discrete steps or along a continuum, such as with atoggle switch or any suitable mechanism. This approval voting mayredirect the agenda according to the overall wishes of the participants.

In some embodiments, two or more ideas may be similar enough that theyend up splitting votes and/or diluting support for themselves. Theseideas may be designated as so-called “equals”, and their respective andcollective votes may be redistributed or accumulated in any number ofways. For instance, some participants may be asked to identify anyequals from their sets. Other participants who voted on these ideas maybe asked to confirm two or more ideas as being “equal”, and/or maychoose a preferred idea from the group of alleged “equals”. The votestallied from these “equals” may then be combined, and the preferred ideamay move on the next round of voting, rather than all the ideas in thegroup of “equals”.

In some embodiments, a credit or debit card may be used to verify theidentity of each participant, and/or to credit a participant suitably ifthe participant's idea advances to an appropriate voting stage.

In some embodiments, there may be some participants that are desirablygrouped together for voting. These participants may be grouped togetherby categories such as job title, geographic location, or any othersuitable non-random variable.

In some embodiments, it may be desirable to deal with polarizing ideasand/or polarized participants. For instance, a combined group ofDemocrats and Republicans may be voting on a particular group of ideas,where some ideas appeal to Democrats but not Republicans, and viceversa. For the polarized situations, the participants may optionallyseparate themselves into smaller subgroups, by casting a so-called“anti-vote” for a particular idea or ideas.

In some embodiments, a participant may attach an afterthought, asub-idea and/or a comment to a particular idea, which may be consideredby the group of participants in later rounds of voting. Such a commentedidea may accumulate “baggage”, which may be positive, negative, or both.

In some embodiments, it may be desirable to test the voting andselection systems described above, as well as other voting and selectionsystems. Such a test may be performed by simulating the various parsingand voting steps on a computer or other suitable device. The simulationmay use numbers to represent “ideas”, with the numerical orderrepresenting an “intrinsic” order to the ideas. A goal of the simulationis to follow the parsing and voting techniques with a group of numbers,or intrinsically-ordered ideas, to see if the parsing and votingtechniques return the full group of ideas to their intrinsic order. Ifthe full order is not returned, the simulation may document, tallyand/or tabulate any differences from the intrinsic order. It isunderstood that the testing simulation may be performed on any suitablevoting technique, and may be used to compare two different votingtechniques, as well as fine-tune a particular voting technique.

As an example, we trace through the voting technique described above. Westart with a collection of participants and ideas, in this case, 10,000of each. We calculate the number of ideas per group for 10,000participants, then form a template based on the number of ideas pergroup, and the total number of ideas and participants. We may use thetemplate described above, based on the Mian Chowla sequence of integers,or may use any other suitable template. We then parse the ideas intosubgroups based on the template, and randomize the ideas so that thenumbers no longer fall sequentially in the template. We then perform asimulated vote for each participant, with each participant “voting” forthe largest (or smallest) number in his/her group of ideas. We mayoptionally include deliberate errors in voting, to simulate humanfactors such as personal preference or fraud. We then tally the votes,as described above, keep the “ideas” that exceed a particular votingthreshold, re-parse the “ideas”, and repeat the voting rounds as oftenas desired. At the end of the voting rounds, the largest (or smallest)number should have won the simulated voting, and any discrepancies maybe analyzed for further study.

In some embodiments, it may be desirable to edit a particular idea,suggest an edit for a particular idea, and/or suggest that the author ofan idea make an edit to the particular idea. These edits and/orsuggested edits may change the tone and/or content of the idea,preferably making the idea more agreeable to the participants. Forinstance, a suggested edit may inform the idea's originator that theidea is unclear, requires elaboration, is too strong, is toowishy-washy, is too vulgar, requires toning down or toning up, is tooboring, is particularly agreeable or particularly disagreeable, isincorrect, and/or is possibly incorrect. In some embodiments, theseedits or suggested edits may be performed by any participant. In someembodiments, the edits are shown to the idea's originator only if thenumber of participants that suggested the same edit exceeds a particularthreshold. In some embodiments, edits to an idea may only be performedby the originator of the idea. In some embodiments, edits may beperformed by highlighting all or a portion of an idea and associatingthe highlighted portion with an icon. In some embodiments, the group ofparticipants may vote directly on an edit, and may approve and/ordisapprove of the edit. In some embodiments, severity of suggested editsmay be indicated by color. In some embodiments, multiple edits to thesame idea may be individually accessible. In some embodiments, the ideasmay be in video form, edits may be suggested on a time scale, and editsuggestions may be represented by an icon superimposed on or includedwith the video.

There are some instructive quantities that may be defined, which mayprovide some useful information about the voting infrastructure,regardless of the actual questions posed to the participants.

The “win percentage”, mentioned earlier, or “win rate”, is defined asthe ratio of the number of groups in which a particular idea wins thevoting, divided by the number of groups in which a particular ideaappears.

The “hurdle rate” is a specified quantity, so that if the “winpercentage” of a particular idea exceeds the hurdle rate, then theparticular idea may be passed along to the next round of voting. The“hurdle rate” may optionally be different for each round of voting. The“hurdle rate” may be an absolute percentage, or may float so that adesired percentage of the total number of ideas is passed to the nextvoting round. The “hurdle rate” may also use statistical quantities,such as a median and/or mean and standard deviation; for instance, ifthe overall voting produces a mean number of votes per idea and astandard deviation of votes per idea, then an idea may advance to thenext round of voting if its own number of votes exceeds the mean by amultiple of the standard deviation, such as 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and soforth. The “hurdle rate” may also apply to scaled or modified “winpercentages”, such as the “new scores” and other analogous quantitiesmentioned earlier.

Note that for this application, the term “exceeds” may mean either “begreater than” or “be greater than or equal to”.

A “template” may be a useful tool for dividing the total collection ofideas into groups. The template ensures that the ideas are parsed in anefficient manner with constraints on the number of times a particularidea appears and how it may be paired with other ideas. Once thetemplate is in place, the slots in the template may be randomized, sothat a particular idea may appear in any of the available slots in thetemplate.

A “perfect inclusion” may be the defined as the ratio of the number ofideas that scored higher than the highest-scoring idea that fails toexceed the hurdle rate, divided by the total number of ideas.

A “perfection ratio” may be defined as the ratio of the “perfectinclusion”, divided by the “win percentage”.

A “purity ratio” may be defined as the ratio of the number of ideas witha “win percentage” that exceeds the “hurdle rate”, divided by the numberof ideas with a “win percentage” that should exceed the “hurdle rate”.

The “purity ratio” may be different for different values of “winpercentage”, and may therefore be segmented into various “sector purityratio” quantities.

An “order” test may be performed, in which the actual ranking of an ideais subtracted from the expected ranking of the idea.

In addition to the methods and devices described above, there are twoadditional quantities that may be used to enhance or augment the ratingsthat are given to the ideas. A first quantity is the amount of time thata person spends performing a particular rating. A second quantity is aso-called “approval” rating, which pertains more to the style or type ofquestion being asked, rather than to the specific answer chosen by thegroup. Both of these quantities are explained in greater detail below.

There is much to be learned from the amount of time that a person spendsdeliberating over a particular rating. For instance, if a person gives apositive rating to a particular idea, and does it quickly, it mayindicate that the person has strong support for the idea. Such a quick,positive reaction may show that there is little or no opposition in themind of the participant. In contrast, if the person gives the samepositive rating to the idea, but takes a long time in doing so, it mayindicate that the person does not support the idea as strongly. Forinstance, there may be some internal debate in the mind of theparticipant.

This rating evaluation time may be used as a differentiator between twootherwise equivalent ratings. For many of these cases, the evaluationtime is not weighted heavily enough to bump a rating up or down by oneor more levels. However, there may be alternative cases in which theevaluation time is indeed used to bump up or down a particular rating.

For positive ratings, a quick response may be considered “more” positivethan an equivalent slow response. In terms of evaluation times, apositive response with a relatively short evaluation time may beconsidered “more” positive than the equivalent response with arelatively long evaluation time. In other words, for two responses thatreceive the same positive rating, a quick response may rate higher (morepositive) than a slow response.

Likewise, for a neutral response, a quick response may also beconsidered more positive than a slow response. In other words, for twoequivalent neutral responses, the response with the shorter evaluationtime may be considered more positive than the response with the longerevaluation time.

The logic behind the positive and neutral ratings is that deliberationin the mind of the evaluator shows some sort of internal conflict. Thisconflict may be interpreted as a lack of wholehearted, or unquestioningsupport for the idea under evaluation.

For negative responses, in which the participant disapproves of aparticular idea by giving it a negative rating, the same type ofinternal conflict argument may be made. For negative responses, a quickrating may show that the participant is highly critical of the idea,since there is little internal debate. A slower negative response mayshow internal conflict for the participant. These are consistentarguments with the positive and neutral cases, but they lead to invertedweighting for the negative ratings.

Specifically, because a quick negative rating shows little opposition inthe mind of the participant, a quick negative rating is “more negative”than a slow negative rating. In other words, for two equivalent negativeratings, the rating having the longer evaluation time is more positivethan that having the shorter evaluation time.

These cases are summarized in the exemplary table of FIG. 11. There arethree possible ratings that can be given to a particular idea—positive,neutral or negative. In other examples, there may be additional ratinglevels, such as highly positive or highly negative. In still otherexamples, there may a numerical scale used, such as a scale from 1 to10, 1 to 5, or any other suitable scale. The numerical scale may includeonly discrete values (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, only) or may include thecontinuum of values between levels.

For each rating level, the evaluation time of the participant is noted.As with the rating levels themselves, the evaluation time may be lumpedinto discrete levels (short, medium, long), or may recorded and used asa real time value, in seconds or any other suitable unit. For theexample of FIG. 11, the evaluation time is taken as a discrete value ofshort, medium or long.

The initial participant rating of positive/neutral/negative is weightedby the participant evaluation time of short/medium/long to produce theweighted ratings of FIG. 11. In this example, the weighted ratings havenumerical values, although any suitable scale may be used. For instance,an alphabetical scale may be used (A+, A, A−, B+, B, B−, C+, C, C−, D+,D, D−, F), or a text-based scale may be used (very positive, somewhatpositive, less positive), and so forth.

The weighted ratings may be used to differentiate between two ideas thatget the same participant rating. The weighted ratings may also be usedfor general tabulation or tallying of the idea ratings, such as for themethods and devices described above.

If the evaluation time is to be grouped into discrete levels, such as“short”, “medium” and “long”, it is helpful to first establish abaseline evaluation time for the particular participant and/or idea.Deviations from the baseline are indicative of unusual amounts ofinternal deliberation for a particular idea.

The baseline can account for the rate at which each participant reads,the length (word count and/or complexity) of each idea, and historicalvalues of evaluation times for a given participant.

For instance, to establish a reading rate, the software may record howlong it takes a participant to read a particular page of instructions.The recording may measure the time from the initial display of theinstruction page to when the participant clicks a “continue” button onthe screen. The reading rate for a particular participant may optionallybe calibrated against those of other participants.

To establish a baseline for each idea, the software may use the numberof words in the idea, and optionally may account for an unusually largeor complex words. The software may also optionally use the previousevaluations of a particular idea to form the baseline.

In some cases, the software may use any or all factors to determine thebaseline, including the reading rate, the idea size, and historicalvalues for the evaluation times.

Once the baseline is determined, a raw value of a particular evaluationtime may be normalized against the baseline. For instance, if thenormalized response time matches or roughly matches the baseline, it maybe considered “medium”. If the normalized response time is unusuallylong or short, compared to the baseline, it may be considered “long” or“short”.

If a particular response is well outside the expected values forresponse time, that particular weighted rating may optionally be thrownout. Likewise, if the reading rate is well outside an expected value,the weighted ratings for the participant may also be thrown out. In manycases, the values of the “thrown out” data points are filled in as ifthey were “medium” response times.

The discussion thus far has concentrated on using the time spent forevaluations as weighting factors for the ratings. In addition toevaluation time, another useful quantity that may be gathered duringevaluations is a so-called “approval level”.

In some cases, the approval level may be used to judge the particularquestions or topics posed to the participants, rather than the answersto those questions.

For instance, we assume that there is an agenda for the questions. Oncean answer for a particular question is determined by consensus from theparticipants, the agenda dictates which question is asked next. Theagenda may also include topics for discussion, rather than just a listof specific questions.

As evaluations progress, the participants can enter an “approval level”,which can be a discrete or continuous value, such as a number between 0%and 100%, a letter grade, such as A− or B+, or a non-numerical value,such as “strongly disapprove” or “neutral”.

The approval level may be used to approve/disapprove of the questionitself, or of a general direction that the questions are taking. Forinstance, if a particular train of questions is deemed too political bya participant, the participant may show his dissatisfaction bysubmitting successively lower approval ratings for each subsequentpolitical question.

The collective approval ratings of the participants may be tallied anddisplayed in essentially real time to the participants and/or the peoplethat are asking the questions. If the approval rate drops below aparticular threshold, or trends downward in a particular manner, thequestion-askers may choose to deviate from the agenda and change thenature of the questions being asked.

For example, consider a first question posed to the group ofparticipants. The participants may submit ideas of their own and ratethem, or may vote on predetermined ideas, resulting in a collectivelychosen idea that answers the question. The participants submit approvallevels for the first question. The question-asking person or people,having received an answer to the first question, ask a second questionbased on a particular agenda. The participants arrive at a consensusidea that answers the second question, and submit approval levels forthe second question. If the approval rate is too low, thequestion-askers may choose to deviate from the agenda to ask a thirdquestion. This third question is determined in part by the approvallevels for the first and second questions. The asking, rating, andapproving may continue indefinitely in this manner. The approval levels,taken as single data points or used as a trend, provide feedback to thequestion-askers as to whether they are asking the right questions.

FIG. 12 shows an exemplary flowchart 100 for the approval ratings. Inelement 111, a question is selected from a predetermined agenda andprovided to the participants. Elements 112-118 are directly analogous toelements 12-18 from FIG. 1. In element 119, the software collectsapproval ratings corresponding to the question from the participants. Ifthe approval rate is sufficiently high, as determined by element 120,the questions proceed according to the agenda, as in element 122. If theapproval rate is not sufficiently high, then the agenda is revised, asin element 121, and a question is asked from the revised agenda.

The description of the invention and its applications as set forthherein is illustrative and is not intended to limit the scope of theinvention. Variations and modifications of the embodiments disclosedherein are possible, and practical alternatives to and equivalents ofthe various elements of the embodiments would be understood to those ofordinary skill in the art upon study of this patent document. These andother variations and modifications of the embodiments disclosed hereinmay be made without departing from the scope and spirit of theinvention.

We claim:
 1. A computer program product, comprising a computer usablemedium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, saidcomputer readable program code adapted to be executed to implement amethod for rating a plurality of ideas, said method comprising:distributing the plurality of ideas to a group of participants;collecting from each participant a rating for each idea; recording anevaluation time for each participant and each idea; and forming aweighted rating from each rating and each corresponding evaluation time.2. The product of claim 1, wherein each rating comprises an approvallevel ranging from positive to negative; and wherein each evaluationtime comprises a length ranging from short to long; and wherein eachweighted rating comprises an approval level ranging from positive tonegative.
 3. The product of claim 2, wherein a weighted ratingcorresponding to a positive rating and a short evaluation time is morepositive than a weighted rating corresponding to a positive rating and along evaluation time.
 4. The product of claim 2, wherein a weightedrating corresponding to a positive rating and a long evaluation time ismore positive than a weighted rating corresponding to a neutral ratingand a short evaluation time.
 5. The product of claim 2, wherein aweighted rating corresponding to a neutral rating and a short evaluationtime is more positive than a weighted rating corresponding to a neutralrating and a long evaluation time.
 6. The product of claim 2, wherein aweighted rating corresponding to a neutral rating and a long evaluationtime is more positive than a weighted rating corresponding to a negativerating and a long evaluation time.
 7. The product of claim 2, wherein aweighted rating corresponding to a negative rating and a long evaluationtime is more positive than a weighted rating corresponding to a negativerating and a short evaluation time.
 8. The product of claim 1, whereinthe evaluation time corresponds to an amount of time spent by theparticular participant rating the particular idea.
 9. The product ofclaim 1, wherein the evaluation time corresponds to an amount of timespent by the particular participant rating the particular idea,normalized by a length of the particular idea.
 10. The product of claim1, wherein the evaluation time corresponds to an amount of time spent bythe particular participant rating the particular idea, normalized by anumber of words and a complexity of words of the particular idea. 11.The product of claim 1, wherein the evaluation time corresponds to anamount of time spent by the particular participant rating the particularidea, normalized by a reading rate of the particular participant. 12.The product of claim 11, wherein the reading rate of the particularparticipant is determined from an amount of time spent by the particularparticipant reading a set of instructions.
 13. The product of claim 11,wherein the reading rate of the particular participant is determinedfrom amounts of time spent by the particular participant rating otherideas in the plurality.
 14. The product of claim 1, wherein said methodfurther comprises: tallying the weighted ratings for all theparticipants and all the ideas; forming an idea rating for each idea,each idea rating being formed from the weighted ratings for all theparticipants for the corresponding idea; sorting the ideas by theircorresponding idea ratings; and selecting a subset of the ideas havingthe highest corresponding idea ratings.
 15. The product of claim 14,wherein the selected subset comprises the idea having the highestcorresponding idea rating.
 16. The product of claim 14, wherein theselected subset includes at least two ideas.
 17. The product of claim16, wherein the selected subset is presented to the group ofparticipants for additional rating.
 18. A computer program product,comprising a computer usable medium having a computer readable programcode embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to beexecuted to implement a method for rating a plurality of ideas, saidmethod comprising: distributing a first plurality of ideas to a group ofparticipants; collecting from each participant a first rating for eachidea in the first plurality; selecting a first winning idea from thefirst plurality in response to the first ratings; collecting a firstapproval rating from each participant in response to the first winningidea; distributing a second plurality of ideas to the group ofparticipants; collecting from each participant a second rating for eachidea in the second plurality; selecting a second winning idea from thesecond plurality in response to the second ratings; collecting a secondapproval rating from each participant in response to the second winningidea; determining a third plurality of ideas in response to the firstand second approval ratings; distributing a third plurality of ideas tothe group of participants; collecting from each participant a thirdrating for each idea in the third plurality; and selecting a thirdwinning idea from the third plurality in response to the third ratings.19. The product of claim 18, wherein the third plurality of ideas has asubject matter determined by the first and second approval ratings. 20.The product of claim 19, wherein the subject matter of the thirdplurality of ideas is changed from a predetermined subject matter, inresponse to a low second approval rating.